4 ms·

A couple of things I've learned: 1) Model the correct behavior when possible. 2) If they do thing x correctly some of the time (the positive opposite of the c

A couple of things I've learned: 1) Model the correct behavior when possible. 2) If they do thing x correctly some of the time (the positive opposite of the criticism), catch them at it. Describe, in a matter of fact but appreciative way. Avoid evaluative language. Avoid the word "you." "I got that paper work well in advance today. Thanks." 3) When you need to give negative feedback, again use descriptive language instead of evaluative, give information (only what they reasonably may not know), avoid the word "you," and keep it short and private. "When I don't receive the paperwork by 10 AM, it means that the other team can't process it until the next day."

throw1234651234 4y ago
This is dehumanizing, not polite. Standard example of corporate lingo - pretending not to be accusatory when you clearly are. Furthermore, it's worded in a way that you expect things to just happen, the way you dictate them.
- bitshiftfaced 4y ago
  This is just what I've personally found helps make criticism easier to hear and less likely to put the other person on the defensive. What are you saying? Directly accuse them of things? > Furthermore, it's worded in a way that you expect things to just happen, the way you dictate them Is this referring to how I presented the information?
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    Depends on the culture. Some countries have a much less overtly polite culture than the US or UK, and direct criticism is expected and welcomed. The UK is particularly bad for this. Depending on tone and context "I'll consider this and get back to you" can mean "I think you're an irredeemable idiot and this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard." Or it can mean "Interesting, let's think about it." This drives some Europeans working in the UK insane because it's so hard to tell what people really mean. It's a two axis problem. Bluntness is on one axis, and good/bad faith are on the other. Blunt good faith criticism can be fine if it's culturally appropriate. Bad faith criticism is never appropriate, even when it's wrapped up in politeness.
  - throw1234651234 4y ago
    Another edit at 4:10pm EST* I am suggesting that your phrasing: "When I don't receive the paperwork by 10 AM, it means that the other team can't process it until the next day." is indirect and worded so as to appear nicer than someone delivering a message, which is "you messed up". It's obvious to everyone involved that someone specific didn't deliver the paperwork. There is no need to obfuscate that fact by some vague abstraction. To me, that obfuscation is: 1). Implying that the guilty party is an idiot to make the speaker seem nicer. It's well known in marketing that when weak-minded people are given a reason (any reason) before a request, they are more likely to comply with a request*. However, "it means that the other team can't process it until the next day" isn't necessary - 90% of the time employees know things need to be done by deadlines. You are asking for them to deliver by the deadline, you don't need to rationalize. 2a). Indirect, potentially manipulative - e.g. accusing while ostensibly appearing not to be; an attempt to be nice while calling someone out. 2c). I will go even further on point 2a - when you ACCUSE clearly, you become responsible for your words. When I say "Hey Ben, your code is garbage, can you try to make it less garbage" I out myself as someone who is being critical. I out that I expect better. I take on the burden of criticizing as defined by Korolev, specifically: “If you do not agree — criticize; if you criticize — offer a solution/alternative; if you offer a solution — work on implementing it; if you implement it — bear the responsibility for your actions”. When you take a weak, passive, indirect voice, you accuse while trying to protect yourself from any consequences, since you can always say "woah, woah, I wasn't accusing you, I just didn't get my paperwork". To go even further with this - "Ben" missed the deadline, your goal is to communicate they missed the deadline. Why add all this other garbage? Since I realize that I am not making a strong enough point, I will include a quote that partially guides me here: "3. Active Voice: Use the active voice. The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive: 'I shall always remember my first visit to Harvard.' This is much better than: 'My first visit to Harvard will always be remembered by me.' The latter sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. This rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary." https://ablconnect.harvard.edu/files/ablconnect/files/howell_gov_40_other_rp_advice.pdf https://ablconnect.harvard.edu/files/ablconnect/files/howell... The ABC/military writing guides phrase it even better, but I am too lazy to look for the source PDFs. * There is solid research showing that "Hey, I am going to cut in line because I am late" is far more effective than "Hey, I am going to cut in line."
- BeetleB 4y ago
  > This is dehumanizing, not polite. Arguing about what's polite will never cease, and is not useful. What is polite varies significantly from person to person and culture to culture. In my experience and observation of those who handle these problems well, the majority of them follow OP's advice. They do it very smoothly that I never noticed it until I was taught the pattern and started seeing it everywhere. What OP is saying is basically: 1. Focus on the action/problem and not the person. If there's a pattern, focus on the pattern, but have concrete examples ("You're frequently late" is not a concrete example). Using "You" here is fine. 2. Don't just focus on the action, but on the impact. Why was his behavior a problem? So what if he didn't complete the work by 10am? It is this that is phrased without "you", because you're trying to explain how it impacts you, not him. Very consistently I've found people who really dislike this advice are also very poor at articulating the impact. They'll refuse to speak of the impact it has on them, and will often make their case based on principles ("One should...", "It is expected...", "It is a societal norm...", "A good employee/professional should know...", "It should be obvious why submitting the work after the deadline is a problem, I shouldn't have to speak to it ..."). Sorry to trigger anyone, but such people are poor communicators. I should know - I was one of them. Changing my mindset from arguing on principles to arguing about impact was quite significant.
pjc50 4y ago
This is often taught as "nonviolent communication".
- BeetleB 4y ago
  Be careful: That's a trigger phrase in HN. (Although having read multiple books, they're all teaching NVC independently).

throw1234651234 4y ago

This is dehumanizing, not polite. Standard example of corporate lingo - pretending not to be accusatory when you clearly are. Furthermore, it's worded in a way that you expect things to just happen, the way you dictate them.

bitshiftfaced 4y ago
This is just what I've personally found helps make criticism easier to hear and less likely to put the other person on the defensive. What are you saying? Directly accuse them of things? > Furthermore, it's worded in a way that you expect things to just happen, the way you dictate them Is this referring to how I presented the information?
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  Depends on the culture. Some countries have a much less overtly polite culture than the US or UK, and direct criticism is expected and welcomed. The UK is particularly bad for this. Depending on tone and context "I'll consider this and get back to you" can mean "I think you're an irredeemable idiot and this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard." Or it can mean "Interesting, let's think about it." This drives some Europeans working in the UK insane because it's so hard to tell what people really mean. It's a two axis problem. Bluntness is on one axis, and good/bad faith are on the other. Blunt good faith criticism can be fine if it's culturally appropriate. Bad faith criticism is never appropriate, even when it's wrapped up in politeness.
- throw1234651234 4y ago
  Another edit at 4:10pm EST* I am suggesting that your phrasing: "When I don't receive the paperwork by 10 AM, it means that the other team can't process it until the next day." is indirect and worded so as to appear nicer than someone delivering a message, which is "you messed up". It's obvious to everyone involved that someone specific didn't deliver the paperwork. There is no need to obfuscate that fact by some vague abstraction. To me, that obfuscation is: 1). Implying that the guilty party is an idiot to make the speaker seem nicer. It's well known in marketing that when weak-minded people are given a reason (any reason) before a request, they are more likely to comply with a request*. However, "it means that the other team can't process it until the next day" isn't necessary - 90% of the time employees know things need to be done by deadlines. You are asking for them to deliver by the deadline, you don't need to rationalize. 2a). Indirect, potentially manipulative - e.g. accusing while ostensibly appearing not to be; an attempt to be nice while calling someone out. 2c). I will go even further on point 2a - when you ACCUSE clearly, you become responsible for your words. When I say "Hey Ben, your code is garbage, can you try to make it less garbage" I out myself as someone who is being critical. I out that I expect better. I take on the burden of criticizing as defined by Korolev, specifically: “If you do not agree — criticize; if you criticize — offer a solution/alternative; if you offer a solution — work on implementing it; if you implement it — bear the responsibility for your actions”. When you take a weak, passive, indirect voice, you accuse while trying to protect yourself from any consequences, since you can always say "woah, woah, I wasn't accusing you, I just didn't get my paperwork". To go even further with this - "Ben" missed the deadline, your goal is to communicate they missed the deadline. Why add all this other garbage? Since I realize that I am not making a strong enough point, I will include a quote that partially guides me here: "3. Active Voice: Use the active voice. The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive: 'I shall always remember my first visit to Harvard.' This is much better than: 'My first visit to Harvard will always be remembered by me.' The latter sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. This rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary." https://ablconnect.harvard.edu/files/ablconnect/files/howell_gov_40_other_rp_advice.pdf https://ablconnect.harvard.edu/files/ablconnect/files/howell... The ABC/military writing guides phrase it even better, but I am too lazy to look for the source PDFs. * There is solid research showing that "Hey, I am going to cut in line because I am late" is far more effective than "Hey, I am going to cut in line."
BeetleB 4y ago
> This is dehumanizing, not polite. Arguing about what's polite will never cease, and is not useful. What is polite varies significantly from person to person and culture to culture. In my experience and observation of those who handle these problems well, the majority of them follow OP's advice. They do it very smoothly that I never noticed it until I was taught the pattern and started seeing it everywhere. What OP is saying is basically: 1. Focus on the action/problem and not the person. If there's a pattern, focus on the pattern, but have concrete examples ("You're frequently late" is not a concrete example). Using "You" here is fine. 2. Don't just focus on the action, but on the impact. Why was his behavior a problem? So what if he didn't complete the work by 10am? It is this that is phrased without "you", because you're trying to explain how it impacts you, not him. Very consistently I've found people who really dislike this advice are also very poor at articulating the impact. They'll refuse to speak of the impact it has on them, and will often make their case based on principles ("One should...", "It is expected...", "It is a societal norm...", "A good employee/professional should know...", "It should be obvious why submitting the work after the deadline is a problem, I shouldn't have to speak to it ..."). Sorry to trigger anyone, but such people are poor communicators. I should know - I was one of them. Changing my mindset from arguing on principles to arguing about impact was quite significant.

pjc50 4y ago

This is often taught as "nonviolent communication".

BeetleB 4y ago
Be careful: That's a trigger phrase in HN. (Although having read multiple books, they're all teaching NVC independently).